Talk:Andy Byford

Potentially useful source

BBC article, April 8, 2018. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Correspondence from Stringer to Byford regarding reopening closed exits

@J.D.718 and Kew Gardens 613: I don't believe it is notable to include Stringer's letter to Byford about the closed exits. This is notable in the NYC Subway History and the 2017 New York City transit crisis articles, maybe. But Byford wasn't even the author of this letter. He merely received a recommendation from the NYC comptroller, which Byford has undoubtedly done for many other communications in the course of his regular job. I don't think this is among the most important things to mention here, especially since Byford is behind much more important events such as the Fast Forward plan and the response to the transit crisis. epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think what the letter references is significant, on balance, since Bynford had a lot of praise for the job done over the previous two years, which kind of overlooks the daily issues caused by so many out-of-service entrances and no plan to change that.J.D.718 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

J.D.718, I agree that Byford has done a great job at the MTA, and this is actually a common sentiment. However, according to our undue-weight guideline, Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Based on this, I don't think the letter to Byford is as important compared to his other work, e.g. accessibility, signaling, bus redesigns, Fast Forward. I will leave this open for discussion, but I think that we should be giving more weight to other initiatives that Byford actually accomplished during his tenure, rather than proposals made for him. Unfortunately, with his resignation, I don't see the entrances issue being resolved while he is still NYCTA head. epicgenius (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The letter is just the source to include the issue of closed entrances not addressed while he ran the MTA. It's a prettybigproblem that just festers. Only praise looks like the page does not have a neutral viewpoint.J.D.718 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

J.D.718, I am aware of that. However, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are not mutually exclusive. It can be neutral and still pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand. IMO, this info about closed entrances belongs more in the List of closed New York City Subway stations and 2017 New York City transit crisis articles. Neither Stringer's nor Byford's articles are too relevant for this info, since it isn't a major thing in either of their lives. epicgenius (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The long-term issue just seemed overlooked. I didn't know there were any "transit crisis" pages, still learning. Now, I see that you actually pasted what I'd added here into 2017 New York City transit crisis, about a week ago, which does cover it and makes it just redundant here but you didn't mention that in your many 'not notable' notes... epic.J.D.718 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

J.D.718, I understand. I mentioned in the beginning that This is notable in the NYC Subway History and the 2017 New York City transit crisis articles. I think I should've covered that as the very first sentence. epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That makes one of us. I do not understand "This is notable in...2017 New York City transit crisis articles, maybe" (1-29) to mean 'I already moved what you had entered here to there, last week', and I doubt others would either.J.D.718 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

J.D.718, that makes none of us, actually. I didn't even say "I already moved what you had entered here to there, last week" in any of my previous comments, and I never implied that. All I meant is that it would maybe be notable to include in the transit crisis article. I didn't see any reason to do so, anyway, since we're talking about whether this sentence should or should not be included in Byford's article. epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

How confusing. Please reread my last comment. You wrote: "This is notable in...2017 New York City transit crisis articles, maybe". (1/29) You neglected to write anything like 'I already moved this from here to there, as more appropriate', though you had, the week prior (despite that "maybe" 1/29). That pertinent fact would have precluded my re-add, and saved us both the strokes. Common courtesy aside, aren't you supposed to inform when you lift and move info from one Wikipedia pg to another like that, anyway? All you did, from my angle, was revert me and take the info elsewhere without any mention of that, no '"maybe", while making your case to keep it off of Byford's pg... is that collaboration here on WP?J.D.718 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as this page is concerned, the info did not belong here. I'm not sure what you want me to do. I made yesterday's comment at the spur of the moment, not realizing I already moved the info to the transit crisis article. Would you like me to apologize for not mentioning this? And no, editors do not have to be notified when content is moved from one page to another. Only the origin page has to be mentioned. epicgenius (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

J.D.718, actually, I'm going to apologize for not taking a closer look at first. I suppose I should have mentioned earlier that it was Kew Gardens 613 who made the revert on this page, not me. Regardless, I didn't leave that good of a summary at the History of the NYC Subway article. epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Beg to differ on the revert, looks like you did so here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Byford&diff=938078185&oldid=938060412 which was what I referenced. I thought I was clear about what I would want: to have been informed that you pasted what I wrote elsewhere, the week before (in lieu of all this, for instance), and for actions to reflect collaboration rather than only critique (with no mention of lifting the content I'd added, and pasting it elsewhere). Enough said, let's move on.J.D.718 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

J.D.718, it was this edit which I was referring to. Yeah, let's move on. epicgenius (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Train Daddy

@Joeyconnick: I've reverted your edit and brought it here to the talk page. As I said in my edit summary, I think inclusion of nickname is "fine - it was commonly used in the media, and has a good reference behind it. It's also well integrated into the text." I also agree with Bellowhead678 who stated "think this is more than trivia, it's a fairly common nickname" - as I've seen it used in the UK too. I also don't think your statement of WP:TRIVIA is that relevant - given that article refers to trivia sections (which this is not). Turini2 (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If anything MOS:NICKNAME is more relevant - "Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject" and "Nicknames that are sourceable but not generally known to the public .. are not encyclopedic." - I think the wide range of media coverage and knowledge of said nickname by public supports the inclusion. Turini2 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Does the general public outside of New York know who "Train Daddy" is? No, they don't. MOS:NICKNAME refers to names like Elton John or Drake or Mark Twain or Eminem or Magic Johnson... where the general public is more likely to know the subject by the nickname/alternate name than by their actual name. Which is why the inclusion of the highly local, however sourced, moniker "Train Daddy" is 1000% inappropriate. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that assertion regarding the general public is correct - both through my own experience, but also examples like this and this. Additionally, just because it's more relevant to a NYC reader doesn't mean it has to be excluded - wikipedia is many things to many people after all. Ken Livingstone has a good example of a nickname that meets MOS:NICKNAME but isn't a universal nickname/alt name - the Red Ken nickname was mostly used by the media in the 1980s, but it still has a place in that article. Turini2 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Education

Education - Andy has a certificate from the University of London, that's its name. There's no need to challenge which university of London it is. See University of London — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsparagusTips (talk • contribs) 09:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There's over 15 institutions e.g. King's College London, University College London, London School of Economics etc - hence the question which one the degree is from. Turini2 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)